home

Missouri GOP's Voter Suppression Plan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

James Joyner discusses Missouri's Voter ID plan (I call it the GOP's voter suppression scheme):

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

Joyner remarks:

This . . . would be defensible if there were strong reason to believe that significant numbers of non-citizens were showing up to vote and skewing the election results. There isn’t. Certainly, illegal aliens have strong incentives to avoid official scrutiny. So, who are these people we’re trying to keep from voting?
Answers to simple questions - Democrats. That is who the Missouri GOP is trying to keep from voting.

By Big Tent Democrat

< The Candidates on Federal Marijuana Club Raids | What Is a Realistic Electoral Map For November? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Missouri GOP's Voter Suppression Plan | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:12 AM EST
    It's an outrageous proposal, and one hopes that the Democrats in MO are organizing a massive campaign to defeat it.

    Alternatively, I hope Robin Carnahan (MO Sec. of State) finds a reason to keep it off the ballot.

    GOP Is Going For A Twofer In MO (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    New ID requirements and an anti-affirmative action amendment.

    I heard that one of the reasons that McCaskill did not want Clinton to be the nominee is that she feared that wing nuts would come out in force to vote against her in MO. Well the wing nuts will be out in force in MO and Obama will lose the support of small town, rural conservative Dems. Dems can't win in MO without the combined support of the AA community and the conservative Dems. IMO the Dems will lose in MO.

    Parent

    Fortunately (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by standingup on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Connerly's group failed to get enough signatures to get the anti-affirmative action amendment this time around but they are planning to try again in 2010.

    Parent
    Glad To Hear That (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:27 PM EST
    Various things I read about this made it sound like it was a done deal.  Thanks for correcting me on this.

    Parent
    Then why didn't she endorse Edwards? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:02:57 AM EST
    Obama's already getting thumped in state wide polls in Missouri.

    Parent
    McCaskill Was Not Particurly Popular (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    in state even before the primary began. A balancing act between AA community and conservative Dems has the potential of costing her support for reelection either way. IMO McCaskill sees herself as a "player" in an Obama administration (rumors of VP) and not in Clinton's.

    Parent
    I was cheering her on in 2006 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:31:57 AM EST
    at ___ Hughes political house party.

    She's since slipped a bit in esteme?

    Parent

    Slipped? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Cate on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    McCaskill morphed almost immediately into what was called a 'rubber stamp' for Bush. This after using the 'Down With Tyranny' and 'FireDogLake' "Blue Americans" support to win. What is amazing is NOW the uber-liberals LOVE her just because she came out for Obama. And, yes, she has her eye on VP IMO.

    Parent
    Poor deluded thing. (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    Na ga hapin. She would add nothing to his ticket.

    Parent
    Who isn't likely to have Photo ID? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:35 AM EST


    lol (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    How does a nation where a huge slice of the population have no passport, have the gall to require proof of nationality to vote?

    I agree, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    but increasingly, there are things that you need proof of citizenship for, including being hired for a new job.  Although I understand the implications of making it too difficult for legitimate voters to vote, perhaps we should be thinking of ways to make it easier to obtain the necessary credentials. My mom had a difficult time obtaining a passport because the town hall that housed her birth certificate had burned down in 1925 taking all of its records with it so I fully understand the predicament that people can find themselves in.  (She also had a difficult time proving she was old enough to collect her social security.)

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    Birth certificates are a nightmare to get.  I am involved with a social service agency that serves indigent people.  In order to get them any services, we spend days, finding their birth certificates from all the little tiny towns.  And it costs money.  So 30+ dollars can mean a lot to people.  The Republicans have used this trick in the last 7 years to excluded people from food stamps etc.  But, I guess no one noticed, cause it was just the poor people.  

    Education on identity should be the big issue.  

    Parent

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    the kind of stuff that makes me say that, while we should fight against this stuff, we also need to expand, not contract, our demographic base. The wider the demographic base is the harder it will be for the GOP to target for disenfranchisement.

    Of course, with the MI and FL situation, we've really lost the high ground on this argument.

    not the high ground (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    the election itself.

    Parent
    Now THIS (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    is voter suppression.

    That WVWV telephone campaign was NOT voter suppression.

    I was on the (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    West Virginia elections website earlier, and they had a notice about possible confusion with regard to WVWV's activities.

    Oddly, nobody is jumping up and down claiming that this is a Clinton voter suppression tactic now...

    Parent

    Right now. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    you cannot get any governmental assistance without birth certificates etc.  So, in a bizarre way, the lowest of the low income will be fine, it's the folks that are not in the system who will be caught in a tangle.  The seniors, the younger people.  

    It's not just ID, non citizens can get driver's licenses.  The only way is naturalization certificate or birth certificate.  Birth  certificates cost money to get, take a long time. and most people do not have the time or inclination to cope with the mess.  

    You will show your papers (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    or you will not vote. Where are your papers? No papers, we can hold you cause you may be an illegal. No papers, we can hold you cause you may have committed a crime. No papers, we can hold you because we have been empowered to by the "People."

    Parent
    Birth certificates (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    Notarized?  Not notarized?  Will the teach Poll workers the complexity of documentation.  

    Parent
    As a poll watcher many times (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    I have to wonder about that. Last time I went to vote I was told that I didn't have proper documentation. After reviewing it with the poll worker it became apparent that I did have the proper documentation. How many voters won't know what the proper documentation should be? And how many will be cowed instead of requesting a provisional ballot?
    Scary, voter suppression stuff.

    Parent
    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Nadai on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    every locality issues their own version of a birth certificate.  Mine (born in Washington, DC) and my sister's (born in TN) look very different.  I suspect they change over time, too.  Are the states going to issue an encylopedia of what all the birth certificates from every era are supposed to look like?

    Parent
    California... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST
     You walk in, you sign, you get a ballot, you vote.  Adding any layers will cause problems.  

    Parent
    Same in WA, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    we have to show valid ID to get registered (birth cert plus photo id, or driver's lic (driver's lic requires birth cert)). It is a process I've never heard to be problematic.  WA is about to eliminate polls and go to 100% mail-in ballots.

    There could be a variety of reasons the GOP is pushing this...even just clearing an easier path to ID chips.

    Why are Federal Election voting rules governed by states?  

    Parent

    because (none / 0) (#49)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    we don't really hold a Federal election.

    Each state elects the "electors" to the electoral college to select the Pres & Vice. So the states get to make the standards, right?

    The only Federal rules that apply are the constitutional statutes to prevent suppression of voter's rights.

    do i have this right? I defer to the lawyers here.

    Parent

    you are correct (none / 0) (#61)
    by Saxon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:52:02 PM EST
    about States choosing electoral votes to elect the president

    Parent
    I like how my polling place does it.... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    I walk in, state my name, they find my name on the rolls, I sign my name, I vote.  No problems, no ID required.  No one has yet tried to vote in name.  And if I happen to lose my wallet on election eve, I am not disenfranchised because of it.

    And best of all, I vote on a mechanical machine with a paper trail, no worries about Diebold-esque shenanigans.

    Parent

    must be in MN! (none / 0) (#51)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    exactly.....even the touch screens here produce a  electronically scan-able paper ballot, and that's what goes into the ballot box.

    plenty of opportunities to register at the polls. Failing all other "proof" requirements for registering at the polls, you can bring in a neighbor who is registered voter to vouch for you that you live where you say, and are who you say you are etc. and that works.

    Parent

    NY actually.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    glad to hear somebody else is doing it right!  

    If I ever got asked for ID before I voted I'd be liable to fly off the handle and call the election workers nazis...lol.

    We don't need no stinkin' papers in the land of the free...run that bullsh*t someplace else:)

    Parent

    amen to that (none / 0) (#54)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:05:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Same as it ever was. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    Rove & Co are firing on all cylinders. They are the ones who will literally do ANYTHING to win.

    We forget this at our peril.

    Dems are going to have to get more proactive (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    in order to counter  voter suppression.  With the Supreme Court approving voter ID requirements, I see no alternative but to start a massive voter education and registration movement, going precinct by precinct in heavily Democratic areas.   We have to educate our voters and help them get the photo IDs they need so they will have them in plenty of time for November.

    Of course, we need to use the courts whenever possible, but the courts have not been on our side lately and we are going to have to work around these limitations as best we can.

    We also have to win elections (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    before the odious laws can be passed.

    Parent
    And we also have to suppress (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    phony accusations of voter suppresion. (e.g. the WVWV accusations last week).

    We can't be crying wolf on the topic.

    Parent

    Massive Voter Education Program Needed To Be (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    undertaken by the Dems after the 2000 election. Crickets.

    Parent
    Why I'm so bitter Part 3892477501 (and an Indy) (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    Because we didn't stick to our guns the last two presidential elections (after seeing clear evidence of vote suppression). The Dems had an opportunity to ensure that every vote got counted.

    Everyone remembers the '00 Senate cave and in '04 how Kerry conceded with Ohio still in question. Dems had shiny new databases and hoards of new young registered voters to mine to bother about Ohio.

    Parent

    Amen! (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    I'm very bitter, too.
    I'm also outraged about the arcane, anti-democratic primary process that the DNC has seen fit to foist upon us.  If that isn't fixed STAT, I'm seriously  thinking of going independent.  Enough already!

    Parent
    Anecdotal, but important . . . (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by wurman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    . . . my half Native American ex-wife, born in a Montana hospital, has cousins, born at home on the reservation, who could not prove they are US citizens.

    This came up in efforts to get US passports for travel to & from Canada & one instance of an application for a military security clearance.

    And, yes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs tribal rolls did resolve the issues--BUT it was a real hassle with lots of bureaucratic bungling & administrative nonsense & skirting around actual requirements for birth certificates & "notorizable," offically acceptable documents.

    Politics of exclusion--really!  Hilarious . . . .

    Just recently both houses of Congress passed legislation to make certain that Sen. McCain is perceived as a "natural born" citizen--he was born in Panama, where his dad was stationed as a US Navy officer.

    ACLU v. Kiffmeyer (MN Sec. of State) (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    You might be interested in this (not so much re  passports as re NA voting rights)

    Indians Win Voting Rights Case in Minnesota Filed by National Congress of American Indians and the MN ACLU

    [this was in place for nov 2006 elections]

    Judge James Rosenbaum in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis ordered Minnesota's Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer to accept tribal government issued identification cards for voting in the November 2nd election. The National Congress of American Indians and the Minnesota ACLU combined with American Indian plaintiffs to file this lawsuit against the state for discriminating against American Indian voters by denying them the right to vote using tribal ID cards.

    The federal court ordered that:
    1) Tribal identification cards that contain name, address, signature and photo will have the same status as a Minnesota drivers license as sufficient proof of identity and residency and
    can be used to register to vote on election day.
    2) Photographic tribal identification cards that do not contain an address (or a current address)
    can be used in combination with a current utility bill to register to vote on election day.
    3) Tribal identification cards can be used to register to vote on election day as described above for tribal members living on or off reservation.

    ps Kiffmeyer-Gov.Pawlenty O'Nuthin appointee and pal, voted out of office last 06 She was all about suppression...pushing picture ids to vote. bad girl

    Parent

    I'm so sympathetic; it can really shut down lives (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    "Border patrol" hardliners think that borders are like giant dotted lines you can see from outer space and people crossing them can be processed like cans of pop at the checkout.

    The McCain story doesn't surprise me a bit.

    Getting authentic paper can take years. (I still have problems and always get yanked out of a line: 1st gen immigrant, parents of different nationalities, spouse has dual ct'znry blah blah blah)

    I used to work for an NGO that got refugees into temp housing just so they could pivot to locations most suitable for education and work. Just getting a library card can be a huge ordeal.


    Parent

    And I bet (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    you want universal health care also.  Just wait it will be worse.

    Parent
    need a voter rights law suit (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM EST
    on these sorts of issues if these laws keep passing. A nice case of a citizen doing reasonable things to try to vote but not allowed to vote. I remember there was a case recently that was voted down by the SCOTUS, but I remember they left the door open because the case didn't deal with the issue the way they wanted.

    Seems like the bottom line is that with any sort of requirement, there must be things in place to make it easy for a citizen to meet that requirement. That probably means funding and assistance for indigent people to get the paperwork they need. As well as some programs to let people know what they do and don't need at the polling places so they're not incorrectly turned away.

    Ah politics, isn't it grand.

    The issue is that voter suppression or (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    voter disenfranchisement comes in different forms.  Whether it be as here with unrealistically stringent ID regulation or through weaning out voters from voting list be it through the felon list or other tactics.   There is also the disqualification of votes after the fact as in Fl 2000.

    We do have a problem though and that is that the Supreme Court has already cleared the way for further erosion of our rights in this areal.  I am willing to bet that it won't be the white working class that is going to be disfranchised by this in MO. (chinas por botellas Armando)

    I want a national voter database (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    I have a hunch that Republicans cheat by voting in different states. A lot of wealthier people have two homes, one for summer and one for winter. Legally, they would only be able to vote at their permanent residence, but with absentee ballots it would not be difficult to vote in two states.

    The logic: The right has been telling them that Democrats cheat for so long that many of them would be willing to cheat just to "balance the scales". Again, it's just a hunch, based on strict guesswork and a vivid imagination, but I can't see why they would not do this. States don't compare notes on voter registrations. They are supposed to, but apparently they don't.

    Please, please, please.... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    just say no to new databases.  Nothing scares me more than a big government with lots of databases...a recipe for tyranny.

    Parent
    They have it already (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    The social security administration has a record of every person in America, or nearly every one. In addition to that, they have DMV, police, and tax records for most adults over 18. When my husband immigrated he went to get his driver's license, and wanted to use his nickname instead of his formal name, but he had to use the name that was on his social security care. That was the first time I realized that California's DMV actually checks social security numbers. That ties the Driver's license to the social security system. We already know that it's also tied to selective service and voter rolls.

    The only way we can prevent tyranny is not to elect tyrants.

    Parent

    cheating .... it doesn't matter rep or dem. (none / 0) (#46)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    cheating is wrong and neither party is clean as a whistle. I don't think wealthier people with two residents are voting twice any more than I think college students away from home do. In fact I'd wager it happens more on the youthful side due to their inexperience.  

    The potential for fraudulent voting practices cuts both ways. Caucuses anyone?  I don't think there is anymore problem showing ID when you vote than there is showing your ID to buy beer. You got to have it or no go. Are they're issues like birth certs? Yes, but a process can be put in place that begins at birth for ID purposes because each birth in a local is general registered in the local. If you want the rights of a citizen than you have to be forthright in acknowledging who you are. Most people won't have a problem if the process is fair and reasonable. I do think you're looking at a grandfathered methodology combined with new issuances moving from a certain point on to rectify the problems over the long term.    

    Parent

    Showing ID at the polls does't bother me (none / 0) (#59)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:02:23 PM EST
    Although I draw the line at forms of ID that few people have - such as proof of citizenship. But I do believe that some people register falsely. Not undocumented workers. They don't want to be on the rolls. They're too afraid of getting caught. I do think that a certain amount of voter fraud occurs among right wingers, because I've seen too many of them railing against liberals for voting twice to think that wome won't try to tip the scales back in their favor a bit. It bothers me that the "cheating voter's" meme encompasses only method that would likely be employed by poor people and ignores the potential for voter fraud by the wealthy.

    Parent
    rich people who have (none / 0) (#62)
    by Saxon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:01:26 PM EST
    two homes are supporting Obama; so you can relax:)

    Parent
    Combine this kind of thing... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Dadler on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:23:14 PM EST
    ...with hackable, paper-trail free voting equipment, and you've got the right wing recipe for electoral victory.  Wake up, Dems.  

    Wake up.

    You don't even need to combine it (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dianem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    The hackable, paper trail free voting equiptment alone is enough to steal elections. The rest of this voter supression nonsense is just a smokescreen so that they can justify cheating to "balance" things. It's easier to convince people to cheat if they believe that they are simply enforcing "the will of the people" against hte tyranny of a bunch of cheaters.

    Seriously - I wonder how many small town voting supervisor's have spun votes in favor of their preferred candidate? I'd like to believe that they are all honest and faithful to their offices, but my experience with human beings has shown me that a lot of people aren't that honest, and even more are willing to cheat for causes that they believe in.

    Parent

    As Ga6th said above... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    This is clearly odious, and merely the latest in a long string of GOP schemes to depress Democratic turnout--opposition to motor-voter, purging of voter rolls, etc.

    Having said all that, we've really given away the high ground with our behavior with regards to Michigan and Florida. We're about to nominate someone whose campaign actively opposed giving these voters a voice in the primary, motivated entirely because he would lose.

    Once we knock out two entire states because they'll vote for the wrong person, what grounds do we have to claim we're any more principled than the GOP?

    Democrats should always be on the side of making it easier for people to vote. I even thought it was wrong of us to sue to prevent the Republicans from fielding a candidate in Tom DeLay's district in 2006. We should always make it easier to vote. Always.

    Well, (none / 0) (#27)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    There was a congressional election in California in 1996 where it was proven that over 600 votes came from illegal aliens. It wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election.

    I have to show a birth certificate for my sons to play little league, so what's the big deal?

    Everyone on this site has been screaming for months about disenfranchising voters. What is needed is education and resources to allow U.S. Citizens that proper access to get their birth certificates, etc... This way the everyone wins...

    Long-term solutions (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:33:40 AM EST
    will not prevent legislation like this from taking its toll.

    By the way, the GOP has been doing this for years, not months. It's their SOP. Phone-jamming to stop Democratic GOTV efforts, producing voting machines that don't work or switch votes from the Democrat to the Republican, mailing misleading flyers to Democratic voters about which days they're supposed to vote, intimidating voters about ID at the polls, purging legitimate voters from the rolls, disallowing Democratic registrations because of the weight of the paper...these are all things that the GOP has done to suppress the Democratic vote.

    Willful blindness won't make the problem go away. We need to take direct action on the federal level. Many states, such as New Mexico and Florida, have already taken the initiative to make sure that all machines have verifiable paper trails.

    Good resources for more information:

    Black Box Voting
    Brad Blog

    Parent

    Yeah and in Fl to get our verifiable paper trail (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:45:01 AM EST
    we had to take a Jan 29 primary.  That cost us another kind of problem in this election cycle.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    Freaking GOP bastards.

    Of course the DNC did not have to play into their hands so stupidly.

    Freaking DNC bastards.

    Parent

    Claire McCaskill (none / 0) (#42)
    by BettyB45 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    Claire McCaskill's husband Joe Shepard is a big player in the low-income housing game and a multi-millionaire because of it.  I think that may have something to do with her Obama endorsement, since he has been an enabler of low-income con-men in Illinois. She is better than Talent, the Republican she replaced, but I will support any viable Democrat who runs against her next time.

    Simple (none / 0) (#43)
    by Elias on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:47 PM EST
    I think Simple Answers to Simple Questions is Atrios's gag.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Radiowalla on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    Sometimes a misspelling can be very funny!

    Parent
    Wait a minute... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lora on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    Who's checking that some clever voter fraud business person (or evil election fixer) isn't running off phony birth certificates on his/her computer? (sarcasm off)  Hey -- it could happen!

    Ridiculouser and ridiculouser.

    In Indiana, the home of the SCOTUS decision that disenfranchised 90-year-old nuns, there was no proof of any voter having voted illegally, yet the ID law passed and was upheld by the Supreme Court.  Not too much of a burden...for nuns, veterans, students, etc etc.  Riiiight.

    Now we get more draconian in MO.

    Can anyone say, "fascism?"

    Look to your own registration, regardless of state.  Computerized databases are vulnerable to hacking and, uh, "typos" that might cause your name to disappear from the rolls (Bev Harris, Black Box Voting).

    How do I "fix" thee?

    Let me "count" the ways.

    Missouri GOP's Voter Suppression Plan | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment